Re: NAIS

• From: Sheldon Harper <sharper@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:59:41 -0500

Grizzly <Grizzly@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:43dfcdc5$1_1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: 

> Sheldon Harper wrote:
>> enigma <enigma@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> news:Xns975C7675CCC7Aenigmaempirenet@xxxxxxxxxxxx: 
 
>>> "J.C." <jcsplace@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>>> news:dRJDf.340117$pW2.139092@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: 
  
>>>> It's going to be really neat. Before you can take your
>>>> animal to the vet you have to call the state animal health
>>>> department and ask permission. 
  
>>>  two little points:
>>> 1) it doesn't say that anywhere in what you quoted, and
>>> 2) my vet comes to me, i don't take my cow to the vet's.
 
>> Lee,
 
>> It should be clear by now that JerkC is making up the entire story. 
>> If he actually knew anything about the subject he'd know that 
>> farmers don't take livestock to the vet, 
 
>> He's really not worth the effort.
 
> Here in Wisconsin some of us do indeed take our large animals to the 
> vet.  

I know that "some of us" doesn't mean the vet doesn't come to your
farm if you ask for one.

> I hauled three ponies to the UW vet school to have them castrated 
> last year.  

Cheaper than calling a vet to the farm? Used to be farmers did their
own castrations, I know my father in law did. Taking animals to the
vet, as you do, is not the normal case.

> With the new mandatory premises ID law passed in this state 
> I must register my premises before I can avail myself of the services at
> the UW vet hospital. 

It is a form of business license, not unusual when compared to other
businesses. Farming has been getting a free pass till now. It seems
that in the interest of the public health and welfare that's going
away and you're going to be treated like every other food related
business has been for a long time.

> I am hoping that the individual chipping does not 
> become mandatory and do view the entire program with a jaundiced 
> eye....I also found the prospect of having to waive my fourth amemdment 
> rights due to the fact that I own livestock a bit un-nerving.

It sounds, as I read down through your posting, that there's some
confusion afoot.

> The state
> department of ag will be allowed to trespass on any premise recorded in 
> the registry and demand to see your animals and records whenever they 
> damn well please, without benefit of a warrant or due process.  

This is generally true of all food related businesses. It is simply 
arriving at farms later than every other food related business. It is
a public health issue. 

> There 
> goes your right to privacy..This means they can search your house for 
> those records and snoop around while doing so. 

Ahem. That's not true. If you have an office that is part of your
residence then there is a loophole which law enforcement tends to
take advantage of. The way around that is simple. Have your office
100% separate from your residence. It can be in the same building
with its own outside entrance and without any passage opening between 
the office and the rest of the building. That keeps them out of your
home. I would make a seperate office as part of the barn, or a small
free standing out building such as a shed small enough to not require
a building permit. If you put it on skids it isn't considered a 
property improvement and will not increase your property taxes.

That regulations change is the way this world has always worked. It is
your choice to have your office in your home. Perhaps you need to become
more sophisticated in your approach to business and not comingle
business and your home as much as you did in the past.

> I've read though the 
> rules and regs proposed for the NAIS and can honestly say that there 
> will be challenges to this as it appears to violate the constitution...
 
I have empathy for your viewpoints while recognizing the public interest
which is reducing your freedom from oversight. Generally the 4th amendment
doesn't protect you if what you're trying to protect can be seen from
outside your property, and that includes from the air.

I have a friend whi keeps 16 head of cattle who toleme that Michigan 
recently insisted every cow in the state be tested for tuberculosis. 
They had inspectors drive *every* road in search of cows. No farmer 
was permitted to say no or to deny admittance to the inspectors or 
deny access to his cows. Now that seems like a constitutional violation, 
but from what I've heard it was completed without a hitch.

No one is telling you that you must have cattle. That's your choice.
Business has always been franchised (therefore controlled to some
extent or another) by government. Agriculture has had less control
in the past. You have a right to live on your property without 
outsiders coming in and checking on anything without stating a 
probable cause and getting a search warrant. But the minute you 
engage in any sort of business on your property you come under 
regulations which will be enforced. If you wish to maintain a 
home not subject to the sorts of scrutiny you're worried about, 
don't have your home and your business at the same place.

In an ideal world there would be no laws, no regulations, and 
no oversight. Imperfection in humans won't ever permit that to
happen.


.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: NAIS
    • From: Larry Caldwell
  • Re: NAIS
    • From: CanopyCo

• Prev by Date: Re: OT: Where to go for help with somebody's kid that's huffing?
• Next by Date: Re: Joys of rural living
• Previous by thread: Re: NAIS
• Next by thread: Re: NAIS
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

• Security
• UNIX
• Linux
• Coding
• Usenet

• Archive
• About
• Privacy
• Search
• Imprint